4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 15 August 1990 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava II District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) seeking a judicial ruling declaring void his dismissal from his job earlier in 1990 and an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation.
6.  On 19 August 1991 the District Court dismissed the action. On the applicant’s appeal the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) quashed the judgment on 29 April 1992.
7.  On 29 October 1992 the District Court ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was void and that he was entitled to financial compensation. As to the scope of the entitlement the District Court granted a part of the claim and dismissed its reminder. No appeal was filed against the ruling concerning the validity of the dismissal and it became final and binding on 3 December 1992. However, both parties challenged the ruling concerning the compensation.
8.  On 26 February 1993 the Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment of 29 October 1992 concerning the compensation and remitted this issue to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re‑consideration.
9.  In judgments of 30 May 1994, 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 the District Court successively granted various parts of the applicant’s claim for compensation and dismissed its remainder. These judgments were challenged by appeals, the first two by the applicant and the last one by the defendant.
10.  In judgments of 28 March 1995, 23 May 1997 and 1 July 2004 the Regional Court, respectively, quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 and parts of the judgments of 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 as there were numerous procedural and substantive errors. A minor part of the applicant’s claim has thus been allowed with final effect but by far the greater part is still pending before the District Court.
11.  In the period from 12 October 1993 to 17 May 2005 the District Court and the Regional Court held 15 and 4 hearings respectively. Two of the hearings had to be adjourned as no representative of the defendant appeared, for which it was sanctioned by a procedural fine. A part of the claim was granted by way of an interim award; further and better particulars were obtained from the applicant; he submitted further evidence; the case was assigned to a new judge at the District Court; two members of the Regional Court chamber retired and had to be replaced; and the District Court sought an expert report concerning the calculation of the claimed amount.
12.  On 23 November 2000, on the applicant’s petition (podnet), the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that the District Court had violated his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.
13.  The Constitutional Court observed that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only the period after 15 February 1993 when it had been established. It nevertheless took into account the state of the proceedings at that time. The part of the proceedings within its temporal jurisdiction had lasted more than 7 years and 9 months.
The Constitutional Court found that the case was not of a particular complexity and noted that after the District Court’s judgment of 29 October 1992 the subject matter of the proceedings had been narrowed to the applicant’s claim for compensation. The applicant had not caused any substantial delays and what was at stake for him called for special diligence.
The Constitutional Court pointed out that the District Court’s judgments of 30 May 1994 and 18 March 1996 had had to be quashed due to its failure to establish the relevant facts adequately and to follow the instructions of the court of appeal. Moreover, the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 9 April 1993 to 21 January 1994, from 23 October 1997 to 29 July 1998 and from 14 October 1998 to 13 March 2000. The Constitutional Court also noted that the action was still pending before the District Court and that the latter had taken no steps with a view to obtaining the expert report requested on 3 May 2000 in a timely fashion.